IMPORTANT POINT
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 would have no application to a suit filed before coming into force of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been listed after notice had been served on the Respondent No.1 and learned counsel has entered appearance and has filed counter affidavit on his behalf.

3. One Dharam Pal, Respondent No.1 herein, filed a suit for possession by claiming that he had purchased two properties situated at Nakodar by two conveyances dated 24th April, 1959 and 12th June, 1959. It is his further case that having raised constructions in the said properties after obtaining sanction from the Municipality and having recorded his name in the House Tax Records as an assessee of the local body, he proceeded to the United Kingdom in 1964 and at the time of leaving, he had handed over possession of the said properties to his father, who was living along with his other son, Mr. Ram Aggarwal. Subsequently, the father of the Respondent No.1 also left for England and died there in 1970. The brother of the Respondent No.1/plaintiff, Mr. Ram Aggarwal, thereafter started a business in the said premises under the name and style of Vijay Agencies and remained in possession thereof as licencees of the Respondent No.1. On being asked to hand over possession of the suit properties by the Respondent No.1, Mr. Ram Aggarwal, refused to do so, which resulted in the filing of the civil suit, after revocation of the licence.

4. The claim of the Respondent No.1 was denied by the defendant/appellant, Mr. Ram Aggarwal, who claimed that an old shop had been purchased by a sale deed dated 24th April, 1959 in the name of the Respondent No.1 on account of their love and affection for him. Similarly, a second shop was also purchased by them on 12th June, 1959, in the name of the Respondent No.1 on the same ground. The claim of the appellants is that they had subsequently demolished the old structure and had raised the new structure, of which they were in possession and were, in fact, the real and ostensible owners. It was also asserted by the appellants that a large sum of money had been spent by them on the new constructions and that they had been depositing local taxes in respect thereof, though the bills were issued in the name of the Respondent No.l whose name was recorded in the local records as the owner thereof. It was also admitted by the appellants that the electric connection and water connection were in the name of the Respondent No.1. In this context a plea of benami was raised by the appellants which was negated by the trial Court on the ground that such plea was not available after the enactment of the Benami Transactions (Prevention) Act, 1988, which had been held to have retrospective effect.

5. Considering the case made out by the respective parties and the evidence led by them, the Trial Court upon holding that the Respondent No.1 was the owner of the suit properties, decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent No.1 by a judgment and decree dated 9th August, 1991. The appeal preferred by the appellants from the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court by its judgment dated 5th September, 1997, confirming the reasoning of the trial Court, which gave rise to a second appeal filed before the High Court. Having regard to the fact that both the sale deeds were in the name of the Respondent No.1, but the appellants claimed that the properties had been purchased benami in the name of the Respondent No.1 and the appellants were the real owners thereof, the question of ownership was remanded to the First Appellate Court. Upon reconsideration of the evidence, the First Appellate Court re-affirmed its earlier decision holding the Respondent No.1 to be the owner of the property.

6. The appellants filed a fresh Second Appeal against the order of the First Appellate Court which was again dismissed by the High Court upon holding that in view of the specific bar under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, the appellants could not take up the plea of the properties be